Laserfiche WebLink
Volume III - Comments and Responses <br />FEIS - Navajo Reservoir Operations <br />1. General comments are listed first, and responses are provided after each general <br />comment. These are comments /responses that address issues raised by a number <br />of commentors and are addressed in common to (1) highlight issues important to <br />significant numbers of people/entities and (2) avoid repetition. <br />2. Individual letters and transcripts follow the general comments /responses and <br />are arranged in sections as listed below. Each of the sections is preceded by an <br />introduction that lists the total number of letters included in that section and major <br />concerns expressed (measured by the number of respondents citing particular <br />issues). <br />? Cooperating Agencies <br />? States <br />? Local Governments <br />? Water /Irrigation Districts <br />? Industry/Business <br />? Environmental Organizations <br />? Other Organizations <br />? Individuals <br />? Anglers <br />? Transcripts <br />? Form Letters <br />3. The general and individual comments/ responses sections are followed by a <br />section citing letters requiring no response. These include letters simply <br />expressing support or nonsupport or offering opinions or containing advice not <br />pertinent to the DEIS. These letters are acknowledged, but written responses are <br />not included. <br />Summary of Issues <br />Those who commented on the Navajo Reservoir Operations DEIS cited issues in at least <br />30 general areas. Overall, however, as shown in this volume, issues raised repeatedly <br />during the public comment period tended to focus in the main areas summarized below: <br />? Alternatives formulation and selection, including use of the No Action Alternative <br />as the project baseline, a perceived limited range of minimum/maximum <br />flows, alleged preselection of the Preferred Alternative, and other issues. A <br />preponderance of respondents cited this as a concern, often in connection with a <br />desire to implement the 500/5000 Alternative to maintain the existing trout <br />fishery. <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />i <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />i <br />• <br />• <br />•